How to deal with a "true roleplayer".

[Thomas Shey]

Although what I keep thinking about, when it comes to humans, is that making them good at specializing, by "put a stat bonus where you want it, and here have a bonus Feat" is perhaps the opposite way it should be done. To quote Lazarus Long:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

So maybe human design should be more like "second best at everything".

Trying to make a living as a generalist has never worked out very well in games in my experience.

 

[Voadam]

Although what I keep thinking about, when it comes to humans, is that making them good at specializing, by "put a stat bonus where you want it, and here have a bonus Feat" is perhaps the opposite way it should be done. To quote Lazarus Long:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

So maybe human design should be more like "second best at everything".

One way to effect that would be humans get a +1 to everything (stats and skills). Others get +2s in a few things for specialization.

Humans would have broad above average everywhere. Others have average in most things and superior in some areas where they are better.

 

[Voadam]

Trying to make a living as a generalist has never worked out very well in games in my experience.

Wizards, clerics, and druids once they get going seem to do fine being generalists in a lot of editions in my experience.

Batman wizards, healer warrior diviner buffer cleric, scout wildshape-bruiser summoner buffer healer spell-attacker druid.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Trying to make a living as a generalist has never worked out very well in games in my experience.

Wizards, clerics, and druids once they get going seem to do fine being generalists in a lot of editions in my experience.

the diference of course, of between being okayish at everything vs specialising in a specific but very versatile area, which are very different things

 

[Lanefan]

One way to effect that would be humans get a +1 to everything (stats and skills). Others get +2s in a few things for specialization.

Humans would have broad above average everywhere. Others have average in most things and superior in some areas where they are better.

If you're going to do that, why not just leave Humans at +0 and knock all the other changes down by 1 point (thus putting some in the negatives)?

 

[Voadam]

If you're going to do that, why not just leave Humans at +0 and knock all the other changes down by 1 point (thus putting some in the negatives)?

Give everything but humans a -1 on all stats and skills across the board unless they get a specific bonus on that area and lower all DCs by 1?

That seems a lot of work to make everybody feel less competent and special overall for the same mechanical math. Humans' power then would feel like it is just not being thrown a negative. I see no benefit in that characterization reframing.

 

[Faolyn]

If you're going to do that, why not just leave Humans at +0 and knock all the other changes down by 1 point (thus putting some in the negatives)?

Because that still makes humans boring. All ASIs, honestly, are dull. Does the +1 to a stat really matter if you got it from your race/species or from reaching 4th level?

No, what would make them interesting is giving humans abilities. In Level Up, humans get Fast Learner (an additional skill), Intrepid (free expertise die 1/short rest), and one other gift of their choice, which represents either human's start as endurance runners, their ability to survive under dire circumstances, or neuroatypical thought processes.

Any of those are a heck of a lot more interesting than a +1 or +2 in a stat.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Wizards, clerics, and druids once they get going seem to do fine being generalists in a lot of editions in my experience.

That's because they aren't really generalists. They're characters who are well specialized in some things (group opponent damage if nothing else, along with support buffing) and can generalize in everything else. I've yet to see a version of a D&Doid game where spellcasters weren't the go-to for something.

Batman wizards, healer warrior diviner buffer cleric, scout wildshape-bruiser summoner buffer healer spell-attacker druid.

Like I said, there's a big difference between "best at some, good at everything else" and "competent at everything but not standout at anything".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because that still makes humans boring. All ASIs, honestly, are dull. Does the +1 to a stat really matter if you got it from your race/species or from reaching 4th level?

No, what would make them interesting is giving humans abilities. In Level Up, humans get Fast Learner (an additional skill), Intrepid (free expertise die 1/short rest), and one other gift of their choice, which represents either human's start as endurance runners, their ability to survive under dire circumstances, or neuroatypical thought processes.

Any of those are a heck of a lot more interesting than a +1 or +2 in a stat.

Similarly, in PF2e they can (its an option among several) take an extra first level class feat. Being a human or half-elf is actually about the only way to get to do that, and it can be surprisingly impactful.

 

[MGibster]

Let me tell you about Bug. One of my players decided to create a Toxic Shaman for our Hell on Earth game using the Savage Worlds rules. In Savage Worlds, a d4 is the lowest die you can assign to one of your character's traits, with d12 being the highest. As a Toxic Shaman, Bug's primary abilities were Spirit and Faith both of which the player assigned a d4, the lowest you could assign them. Confused, I asked the player if they were sure about this and she answered in the affirmative. I was wondering if this was some passive aggressive way of telling me she wasn't into the campaign, but my fears were unfounded. Bug was one of the best and most memorable PC from any campaign I've run. Bug was a terrible Toxic Shaman, but good at other stuff.

Pictured Below: Bug